Gop Focusing On Awards, Fees

Now, with their new power in Congress, Republicans say they're ready to make the courthouse door a little harder for people to open.

Fed up with what they call a litigation explosion, House Republicans will start the debate Monday on proposals to revolutionize the legal system, from changing how lawyers are paid to limiting who can be sued and for how much.

The Senate also will start debating legal reform soon. Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) introduced a bill last week that in some respects is tougher than the proposals in the GOP's "Contract with America."

It would limit the fees lawyers can recover and drastically cut the damages juries can award.

"The legal system costs too much, and those costs are passed on to the consumers," said Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association. "There is too much litigation. That clogs the courts and prevents people who have legitimate claims from having them heard in a timely fashion."

The more controversial proposals, such as making losers of lawsuits pay the winners' legal fees, have virtually no chance of passing, observers say. But others, such as limiting the amount juries can award in some federal court cases-finally may get through.

Lawyers, consumer groups and other opponents say the proposed legislation would benefit big businesses at consumers' expense by discouraging people with legitimate claims from pursuing them.

"The phrase we use is, `Legal Deform,' " said consumer advocate Ralph Nader. "Anything that takes away peoples' rights to use the courts cannot be called reform."

The National Conference of State Legislators opposes the proposals on the grounds that they would pre-empt the authority of states, which have their own laws governing the civil justice system.

Illinois already limits the percentage of fees lawyers can get in some cases, and the General Assembly is debating a proposal to limit some damage awards in personal injury lawsuits.

"There is state law in these areas. We don't think it's broken," said Jane Campbell, president of the conference. "It's extremely contradictory for the (Republican) leadership to be saying, `We want to move government to the states, except in this area, where we want to concentrate government at the federal level.' "

The proposal before a House subcommittee Monday covers everything from the evidence lawyers can introduce in trial to the punishment judges can impose on those who file bogus claims.

Three provisions stir the most controversy.

One would make losers in some suits pay the winners' legal fees. It would deter people with frivolous claims from suing, supporters say.

Opponents say the proposal would close the courts to the poor, who couldn't afford to lose. They believe it would prompt more litigation-for example, over how plaintiffs' lawyers, who often take such cases on a contingency fee basis, would be paid.

The other two would limit who can be sued when a consumer buys a defective product and would cap the punitive damages juries can award in such product-liability cases. Those cases represent a tiny portion of lawsuits but opponents fear passage would inspire limitations in other areas.

Consumer groups and trial lawyers say the changes are unnecessary. To those who say America has seen an explosion of litigation by people claiming injuries, whether from a fast food chain's hot coffee to a pickup truck's exploding gas tank, they point to statistics that show such suits actually have declined in recent years.

"The spin always has to do with claims of frivolous lawsuits or a litigation explosion," said David Decker, president of the Illinois State Bar Association. "That turns out to be untrue. All the relief being sought is to place limits, or caps, on cases of persons who are deemed entitled to damages; people who have meritorious cases."